What grinds my gears...

[Beliall]

7 hours ago, Milo said:

The BBC’s current “What has the BBC ever done for…?” campaign can fvck right off..

 

Not because the BBC hasn’t achieved some extraordinary things over the years — of course it has. It has produced brilliant television, radio, journalism, comedy, drama, music and sport, but the massively self-congratulatory tone seems to miss the point.

The BBC isn’t a charity that has generously bestowed all these wonderful things upon us. We paid for them.

 

The licence fee is now £180 a year. Twice more than than I pay Netflix, but Netflix and co don't run adverts reminding me of everything it has “done for” drama, comedy or documentaries. It simply has to keep producing something I consider worth paying for, otherwise I cancel it.

 

And that, surely, is the BBC’s real problem.

 

My generation grew up with the BBC at the centre of our lives. My children haven’t. They barely watch or listen to it and haven't for years. When they leave home, why would they voluntarily find £180 a year for a television licence to fund an institution they have little relationship with, and refuses to offer them anything that they want to actively engage in? So why am I being taxed so much for something that I barely use? Tax me and build a hospital by all means. 

 

Ironically, asking “What has the BBC ever done for you?” feels like an organisation looking backwards and listing its achievements when it should be looking forwards and asking a much more uncomfortable question:

“What do we need to become so that the next generation actually wants us?”

 

It rakes in about £4 BILLION each and every year just from licence fees.

 

Four billion quid.

 

A year. 

 

Every. Single. Year. 

 

 

 

 

 

i quit paying for it 4 years ago. every year i get a reminder to declare myself not needing one. all i have to do is not watch the BBC or any broadcast TV, which is easy as i watch my own collection of physical media when i do want to sit in front of the tv. rumour is they're after making netflix and youtube a requirement for a licence and thats the point when hopefully most people will be waking up a realising its bullshit. the way the BBC is funded is archaic. its not like they dont have ads, they just, as you say, use the ad time to show off their own programs and blow their own trumpet. self fund yourselves and then they can be as bias as they like, you know they already are. and they can then waste as much money as they like flying helicopters over burnhams train and paying millions to presenters

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, Milo said:

The BBC’s current “What has the BBC ever done for…?” campaign can fvck right off..

 

Not because the BBC hasn’t achieved some extraordinary things over the years — of course it has. It has produced brilliant television, radio, journalism, comedy, drama, music and sport, but the massively self-congratulatory tone seems to miss the point.

The BBC isn’t a charity that has generously bestowed all these wonderful things upon us. We paid for them.

 

The licence fee is now £180 a year. Twice more than than I pay Netflix, but Netflix and co don't run adverts reminding me of everything it has “done for” drama, comedy or documentaries. It simply has to keep producing something I consider worth paying for, otherwise I cancel it.

 

And that, surely, is the BBC’s real problem.

 

My generation grew up with the BBC at the centre of our lives. My children haven’t. They barely watch or listen to it and haven't for years. When they leave home, why would they voluntarily find £180 a year for a television licence to fund an institution they have little relationship with, and refuses to offer them anything that they want to actively engage in? So why am I being taxed so much for something that I barely use? Tax me and build a hospital by all means. 

 

Ironically, asking “What has the BBC ever done for you?” feels like an organisation looking backwards and listing its achievements when it should be looking forwards and asking a much more uncomfortable question:

“What do we need to become so that the next generation actually wants us?”

 

It rakes in about £4 BILLION each and every year just from licence fees.

 

Four billion quid.

 

A year. 

 

Every. Single. Year. 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Beliall said:

i quit paying for it 4 years ago. every year i get a reminder to declare myself not needing one. all i have to do is not watch the BBC or any broadcast TV, which is easy as i watch my own collection of physical media when i do want to sit in front of the tv. rumour is they're after making netflix and youtube a requirement for a licence and thats the point when hopefully most people will be waking up a realising its bullshit. the way the BBC is funded is archaic. its not like they dont have ads, they just, as you say, use the ad time to show off their own programs and blow their own trumpet. self fund yourselves and then they can be as bias as they like, you know they already are. and they can then waste as much money as they like flying helicopters over burnhams train and paying millions to presenters

 

I agree that this campaign by the BBC is misguided because it's far too self-congratulatory; and if there's something those in the UK (thankfully) loathe, it's American-style displays of ego.

 

The point the Beeb should be making, and one poster above actually hints at this, is that any news source that is voluntarily funded has every reason to shape the "truth" into what their contributors want to hear. You see that all the time with commercial news outlets all over the world. The BBC really does not need to - cannot, in fact - join them in that. I know there are accusations of bias at the Beeb - some of them may be true - but the fact remains that, in that regard, practically every other source that can be thought of is worse. And they are worse because they depend on a revenue stream and therefore tell their contributors what they want to hear.

 

A situation where every single news source has a reason to lie, where they have no accountability for it, where the very idea of truth becomes subverted...well, we're seeing the consequences of that already. Do we really want more of that?

 

Of course, the above point is rather more complex and would need much better packaging to be communicated accurately than the one the Beeb are currently putting across, but all the same, it's the one that they should be making, because, in this world where dreadful things are already happening because people watch, listen to, and act on, the most terrible bullshit given to them by "news" sources, that point is incredibly important.

 

[Innovindil]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

 

 

I agree that this campaign by the BBC is misguided because it's far too self-congratulatory; and if there's something those in the UK (thankfully) loathe, it's American-style displays of ego.

 

The point the Beeb should be making, and one poster above actually hints at this, is that any news source that is voluntarily funded has every reason to shape the "truth" into what their contributors want to hear. You see that all the time with commercial news outlets all over the world. The BBC really does not need to - cannot, in fact - join them in that. I know there are accusations of bias at the Beeb - some of them may be true - but the fact remains that, in that regard, practically every other source that can be thought of is worse. And they are worse because they depend on a revenue stream and therefore tell their contributors what they want to hear.

 

A situation where every single news source has a reason to lie, where they have no accountability for it, where the very idea of truth becomes subverted...well, we're seeing the consequences of that already. Do we really want more of that?

 

Of course, the above point is rather more complex and would need much better packaging to be communicated accurately than the one the Beeb are currently putting across, but all the same, it's the one that they should be making, because, in this world where dreadful things are already happening because people watch, listen to, and act on, the most terrible bullshit given to them by "news" sources, that point is incredibly important.

 

So as a middle ground, why not publicly fund the news section of the BBC and let the rest of it fund itself?

 

Have to imagine people would be happier forking our £300mill ish a year instead of almost £4billion.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

So as a middle ground, why not publicly fund the news section of the BBC and let the rest of it fund itself?

 

Have to imagine people would be happier forking our £300mill ish a year instead of almost £4billion.

I think this idea has been floated on here before, and as long as such funding was absolutely ring-fenced, I personally wouldn't have a problem with that. 

 

Someone also made the point that the documentaries part of the Beeb, in particular, would make enough to easily fund itself. Which , again I wouldn't mind, though having ad content in there every ten minutes might be a bit annoying. 

[Dunge]

I’m about as pro-BBC as they come but that advert was an awful idea. Cringeworthy and condescending. The fact they’re still hammering it is baffling.

[leicsmac]

On the topic of terrible bullshit:

 

 

[Dunge]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

On the topic of terrible bullshit:

 

 

So much of that feels half right.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Dunge said:

So much of that feels half right.

... the other half being only realising just one tiny part of the problem and then applying the solution in a completely incorrect and inappropriate way, right?

[Dunge]

Just now, leicsmac said:

... the other half being only realising just one tiny part of the problem and then applying the solution in a completely incorrect and inappropriate way, right?

 

fixed it. It just had too many words.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Dunge said:

 

fixed it. It just had too many words.

Would add a caveat regarding children or lack of children there, but yes, about right.

[CornwallFox]

The UK is 16th in Europe for asylum applications (there are varying ways of looking at this metric, currently 12th "in" EU). 

It is 3rd in Europe for corporate tax dodging and 1st in Europe for offshore tax losses. Together they account for £40bn in lost track annually, with over £850bn in assets being held in office shore accounts. 

You wouldn't know this from the headlines would you? 

You'd think the papers would be screaming about collecting that extra tax....

[grobyfox1990]

34 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

The UK is 16th in Europe for asylum applications (there are varying ways of looking at this metric, currently 12th "in" EU). 

It is 3rd in Europe for corporate tax dodging and 1st in Europe for offshore tax losses. Together they account for £40bn in lost track annually, with over £850bn in assets being held in office shore accounts. 

You wouldn't know this from the headlines would you? 

You'd think the papers would be screaming about collecting that extra tax....

I work offshore, happy clappers will never be able to comprehend how much revenue the UK loses to the schemes cooked up here. It is definitely a lot higher than the numbers you mention, closed registers after all!

Farage is a regular in Guernsey. Just an everyday slimy thief.

[Narborough Road Fox]

9 hours ago, leicsmac said:

On the topic of terrible bullshit:

 

 

What grinds my gears? Misogyny, that's what. 

Bloody sick of it.

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, Narborough Road Fox said:

What grinds my gears? Misogyny, that's what. 

Bloody sick of it.

Yes, and unfortunately, along with a lot of other negative sentiments, social media is giving those that express it a way to appear legitimate in their own minds.

[Free Falling Foxes]

9 hours ago, Narborough Road Fox said:

What grinds my gears? Misogyny, that's what. 

Bloody sick of it.

Best avoid a recent post in the funny pics thread then.

[Innovindil]

Doctors still using phone calls as the main means of communication. 

 

It's the middle of the work day, it's noisy as balls here and you're using a phone that sounds like it's from the 1950s.

 

It's not an urgent matter, so email me ffs. Or send a mail through your horseshit NHS website.

[Trav Le Bleu]

6 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Doctors still using phone calls as the main means of communication. 

 

It's the middle of the work day, it's noisy as balls here and you're using a phone that sounds like it's from the 1950s.

 

It's not an urgent matter, so email me ffs. Or send a mail through your horseshit NHS website.

If they emailed me, I might not see it for a few days

 

The benefit of a phone call that is answered you know that it's message received.

 

However, my wife is deaf and many places I call won't tell me anything because of data protection.

 

So my gripe is this. We've had reliable video calling for years now, yet no big companies do it. You watch any old TV or film set in our time, people are always video calling each other.

 

They didn't figure with big business getting rid of humans in favour of bots and not giving a damn about their customers.

[Innovindil]

17 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

If they emailed me, I might not see it for a few days

 

The benefit of a phone call that is answered you know that it's message received.

 

However, my wife is deaf and many places I call won't tell me anything because of data protection.

 

So my gripe is this. We've had reliable video calling for years now, yet no big companies do it. You watch any old TV or film set in our time, people are always video calling each other.

 

They didn't figure with big business getting rid of humans in favour of bots and not giving a damn about their customers.

I can understand this bit, but you could at least let people choose how to be contacted. 

 

My issue is to do with my daughter's development, completely non-urgent and wouldn't matter if the email was missed. 

 

It's just so frustrating. So now I've picked up the phone at work, even though I'm not supposed to and now I have to ring the guy back when I finish and we all know how that will go. You're 8,049th in the queue please wait while we deal with higher calls than usual! 

 

Bah. Hate it. 

 

Video calls would sort out the oldies though I'm sure. My mum would love that. 

[StanSP]

On 09/09/2026 at 11:47, Innovindil said:

Video calls would sort out the oldies though I'm sure. My mum would love that. 

Imagine all the doctors saying 'sorry sir/madam, can you just move the phone up a bit, we can only see your forehead...' 

[Voll Blau]

On 29/08/2026 at 20:44, Silebyfox_89 said:

Waiting 24 minutes for my maccys inside the restaurant whilst the drive thru and delivery driver sail through.

The target used to be maximum five minutes from order to collection when I worked in one.

 

The service is now slower without the quality improving. I do wonder what metrics each branch is judged on nowadays.

[grobyfox1990]

On 03/09/2026 at 13:36, CornwallFox said:

The UK is 16th in Europe for asylum applications (there are varying ways of looking at this metric, currently 12th "in" EU). 

It is 3rd in Europe for corporate tax dodging and 1st in Europe for offshore tax losses. Together they account for £40bn in lost track annually, with over £850bn in assets being held in office shore accounts. 

You wouldn't know this from the headlines would you? 

You'd think the papers would be screaming about collecting that extra tax....

This was a public decision in he summer, a UK family onshored their trust for ethical reasons. To pay tax to support public services. Projected assets to grow to £82bn over the life of the trust, which will go to zero now being out of a tax haven.

Same assets, same investment, £82bn difference in tax solely due to where the assets are domiciled. 

I ask all happy clappers, what could £82bn fund???? Will Farage and tommy two bob ensure all tax haven loopholes are shut down so the country is appropriately funded, and not stripped? 

 

Guernsey Court Approves Trust Onshoring for Ethical Reasons | Bedell Cristin

[CornwallFox]

4 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

This was a public decision in he summer, a UK family onshored their trust for ethical reasons. To pay tax to support public services. Projected assets to grow to £82bn over the life of the trust, which will go to zero now being out of a tax haven.

Same assets, same investment, £82bn difference in tax solely due to where the assets are domiciled. 

I ask all happy clappers, what could £82bn fund???? Will Farage and tommy two bob ensure all tax haven loopholes are shut down so the country is appropriately funded, and not stripped? 

 

Guernsey Court Approves Trust Onshoring for Ethical Reasons | Bedell Cristin

Given that lots of the offshore tax havens in use are British, the government simply needs to introduce an immediate 5% tax on all trusts, accounts and assets over £1m in value, and also impose an immediate 5% tab on any assets offshored from the UK, including said tax havens. 

Edited Sunday at 09:35 by CornwallFox

[Juan Carrito]

55 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

This was a public decision in he summer, a UK family onshored their trust for ethical reasons. To pay tax to support public services. Projected assets to grow to £82bn over the life of the trust, which will go to zero now being out of a tax haven.

Same assets, same investment, £82bn difference in tax solely due to where the assets are domiciled. 

I ask all happy clappers, what could £82bn fund???? Will Farage and tommy two bob ensure all tax haven loopholes are shut down so the country is appropriately funded, and not stripped? 

 

Guernsey Court Approves Trust Onshoring for Ethical Reasons | Bedell Cristin

The assets in trust were worth £192mn in 2024 - there's a fair point to be made about taxes lost via the use of offshore trusts but this firm of solicitors kicking around an £82bn figure based on what it might be worth in 110 years or so feels quite a weird move.

[grobyfox1990]

27 minutes ago, Juan Carrito said:

The assets in trust were worth £192mn in 2024 - there's a fair point to be made about taxes lost via the use of offshore trusts but this firm of solicitors kicking around an £82bn figure based on what it might be worth in 110 years or so feels quite a weird move.

Yeh v true, modelling over the long term is always suspect and over a 100 year lifespan is almost impossible to do. Bet they never wished they came up with the figure as it's the one being used.

But doesn't take away from the main premise that by offshoring assets, what will turn out to be many billions are lost to the UK system. And this is only one family/structure...

[Juan Carrito]

4 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Yeh v true, modelling over the long term is always suspect and over a 100 year lifespan is almost impossible to do. Bet they never wished they came up with the figure as it's the one being used.

But doesn't take away from the main premise that by offshoring assets, what will turn out to be many billions are lost to the UK system. And this is only one family/structure...

I agree. I think the difficulty is that capital is so mobile nowadays - it completely erodes the ability of states to do exercise proper control given that there will always be somewhere willing to be the low/no tax outlier.